68 comments:

Thank you for this Ann. I long ago concluded that Michele Goldberg is one of the least thoughtful or informative or persuasive or interesting personalities with wide exposure on the web. Her relative success mystifies me. No need to revise.

She got nothing, nothing. And she is not particularly good at having nothing. A Nazi nutcase kills 80 something innocents, and she says this is of course about misogyny? With no references to what, you know, actually happened?

What blather. She would look better at saying this was a tragedy and not every horrible thing in the worl stems from misogyny, but no.

She once told Matt Welch on BH she could not conceive of any reason besides racism to oppose Obamacare. Matt gave her a chance to walk it back even a little but she stuck to her guns. I don't think she was lying. I think her brain is literally unable to conceive a different reason.

A political ideology that pretends its tenets and principles must and can produce an interpretation of every human event and action that conforms with those tenets and principles, demonstrates their truth, and compels adherence to them, is a totalitarian ideology.

Maybe Goldberg hasn't heard that Breivik's "manifesto" talked about his hatred for his father (who apparently disowned him when Breivik was fifteen)and his close relationship with his mother. That doesn't suggest misogyny but it probably wouldn't have stopped her from trying.

She seems like a sweet, if misguided young woman, who is not accustomed to disciplining her thought process. Indeed, she's a textbook well-meaning libtard.

It never ceases to amaze me how people average intelligence and with VERY limited critical thinking skills, with zero intellectual discipline, can make middling media careers as authors and columnists, as long as they share the correct set of biases.

Any conservative author would have to have 20-30 IQ points on the average liberal author just to have an outside shot at a parallel career. Even then she'd be the "token" hire.

When Michelle Goldberg says that she doesn't want to point out that this tragedy proves her thesis, what she really means is that she would like to do exactly that!

The only problem with her desire, is that, if anything, this event cuts against the grain of her thinking. The attacker was pushing back against Muslim influence in Europe. The Muslims are a great (meaning large, not good) force for misogyny. To resist them is to resist their backward ways.

I've never had that, at least I've never eaten a piece of raw salmon served on rice. Every sushi bar I've ever visited has a bit of lox pinch-hitting for the raw fish whenever salmon is involved. Ditto eel. I think there's some kind of health hazard associated with eating the raw flesh of fish that spend at least part of their life-cycle in fresh water.

When environmentalists like Al Gore stop flying around on private jets, I will believe that they are sincere about cleaning up the environment. When militant feminists like Michelle Goldberg start giving blow jobs to sullen postal workers, I will believe that they are serious about removing the root cause of male misogyny.

First, brows furrowed, eyes narrowed, she attaches misogyny to the Oslo murderer all the while protesting she isn’t … but then near the end the eyes widen and blink and she realizes she better throw in not sharia or Islam itself, but “Jihadist terrorism” in order to retain her credibility.

a) In a clip not shown, Dougherty agrees that this guy was strongly against women having such a prominent and influential role in modern society. It sounds like it's impossible to read this manifesto w/o seeing that it's anti-feminist. Where's the difficulty?

b) Goldberg also suggests that this manifesto sounds like it's mobbyish, because it proves a bunch of stereotypes that libs have re con nuttiness. This sounds like a Althouse approved angle.

c) Apparently this manifesto talks about the sissification of men. Obvious question: was Crack quoted?